Well after a pretty eventful seven days since that bloody article about e-venge was published by the Daily Mail, it was removed last night.
The most distressing result of this defamatory article with all of its whopping 26 inaccuracies, was that it triggered a spate of harassment from my (convicted) cyberstalker for three frickin' days over the weekend, with some of the nastiness still on their blog. The irony is that this was the very same cyberstalker that the Daily Mail derided as a "maniac" in their very own paper!
When I was going to the efforts to protect the boyf and the bambino's name from being included and to ensure that I didn't appear in a 'revenge' article, it was because I was trying to protect my family and also protect myself from being falsely accused of the very thing that I have a five year ASBO protecting me from the actions of my cyberstalker!
Instead, the article triggered a spate of harassment and hate as the cyberstalker took great delight in believing the projection of their own crimes on me were now actually true and breached the crap out of the ASBO!
I was going to say that the Daily Mail have no idea what it is like to be cyberstalked, but they do actually, because they didn't mind writing about how awful it was before... It was so demoralising having to go to the blogs that had shown me support and explain that the person placing nasty comments accusing me of being a stalker or pretending to be my "slandered" ex boyfriends, is actually my harasser.
And what's even worse is that some of her other victims got caught in the backlash of it too and even though it was irrational at the time, I felt guilty that someone else was suffering again unnecessarily.
Anyway, at least it has been taken down now in what is described by the managing editor as a "gesture of good will" whilst the Press Complaints Commission investigate...
In the meantime, it's time to get back to normal sleeping, eating, and living, as I can't allow what has happened or the waiting game to consume me as I have an 11 month old diva with questioning chocolate brown eyes that wants my attention, to destroy the house, or to use the TV stand or shelves as a climbing frame...plus I have the boyf who has missed having a laugh and hurling competitive insults over the Wii Fitness....
In all of the craziness that ensued last week, it was great to find support in so many lovely people whether they wrote to me, commented, wrote a comment of support, or even went to the Daily Mail's website and left a comment (that never got published). Thank you.
This isn't the last of this as I now have to await the result of the investigation by the Press Complaints Commission, but for now, I can rest a little easier as that bloody page has been taken off their website.
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
I'm Tired of the Daily Mail and their "tongue in cheek" article
Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment or post about, or even email me to show their support over the article that appeared in the Daily Mail last week claiming I set up this blog for "e-venge". Whilst I am still angry with the Daily Mail about what I feel is a very personal and public attack on my character, my issue with the Daily Mail represents the wider issue of how bloggers are perceived and treated by 'traditional media' and whether 'facts' actually enter the equation in certain newspapers.
Recently Zoe (Girl With a One Track Mind) blogged about plagarism from bloggers over at The Guardian and in particular mentioned Jonny B, who found his posts in the Mail on Sunday without his permission. He subsequently invoiced them but after agreeing to pay him, they actually had the cheek to refer to bloggers as "amateur writers" and claim "most people are happy to have their work recognised and displayed to a wider audience."
It seems shocking that a paper that's been more than around the block a bit would be so unaware of copyright laws but...the Daily Mail writes...for the Daily Mail. They have a Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along policy.
Which is why I shouldn't really have been that surprised by Laura Topham's hatchet job of me. When I phoned her on Wednesday reeling from the article and the scurrilous comments left by some of their readers, Laura denied that the paper had said that I took revenge online. Really?
"Natalie, like a growing number of other betrayed and deceived women, decided to take her revenge online."
I angrily read out several of the ridiculous untruths that had been published about me and her response was to tell me that it was "tongue in cheek...It's empowering..." and then in an attempt to sidestep the issue at hand she said "I can't believe they forgot to put in a link to your site and the ebook... I think readers would really love it...." and continued to repeat this musing aloud for the remainder of the conversation.
Can't you believe it Laura? I find that hard to believe considering that a link to any of my blogs would have made the Daily Mail look like they employ "amateur writers"... Unfortunately she didn't count on hundreds of their readers searching for "Natalie Lue blog" every day and finding out for themselves.
I wonder if they were confused by finding various snippets from aspects of my life, a blog full of women asking for relationship advice, or the latest hot off the shelves baby and mummy products?
So not only do the Daily Mail seem to have an aversion to dealing with the facts that are given to them about a story, but they will actually deny the printing of their own 'facts', and then in the face of confrontation, chalk it up to "tongue in cheek".
Who gets to decide what is tongue in cheek? Is it me, the person lined up with two other women under a headline about "e-venge", even though I said that I hadn't and would never take revenge and repeatedly stated that I didn't want to be in a revenge article?
Is it the reader, who judging by the comments that were placed before the Daily Mail halted publication of them, didn't see it as "tongue in cheek" and some of them were quite nasty?
Or is it the Daily Mail newspaper?
But then, if you're going to refer to my article as "tongue in cheek" should people who read glaring, sensationalist, often offensive headlines on the front of the Daily Mail, never mind inside it, then perceive all editorial in the Daily Mail as "tongue in cheek"?
Should Daily Mail readers buy it to find out the "tongue in cheek" humourous side of their sharp stance on immigration, the scaremongering stories about health issues, or their reporting about various murders? Maybe after they've finished reading it, they should then buy a proper paper to find out the facts...
Where do you draw the line? How do you determine which editorial will be factual and which will be a made up story, suitable for one of those 'real life' magazines?
Is providing "tongue in cheek" content the Daily Mail's editorial policy?
"Can you believe a thing you see on ITV?" Fridays front page roared. Well, based on their recent form, I think the bigger question is Can You Believe a Thing You See in the Daily Mail?
The Daily Mail thinks that they are in the driving seat here.
They write their stories to suit their own agenda, shouting their twisted views, shaping their readers opinion on it, allowing readers to jump all over the bandwagon and comment about it, and then when confronted, claim it's "tongue in cheek".
They take content without permission from bloggers and when confronted refer to them as "amateur writers" as if a blogger should be grateful for their work to appear in their paper...without their permission...
What if Jonny B had his own editorial policy which said that he only wanted to appear in certain media outlets and that he didn't want his work in there? What if they'd asked his permission and he'd said no? Well I guess they'd have gone ahead and published anyway because his view doesn't matter.
In fact, nobody's views but the Daily Mail's matter because from the moment that you build an editorial policy around spoonfeeding to an audience of people who clearly don't know the difference between fact and "tongue in cheek" works of fiction, the Daily Mail is doing a huge disservice to their readers.
Is there no story in facts? There are a lot of shitty, horrible, devastating, exciting, wonderful, REAL things that happen out there in the world - Why do we have to be subjected to works of fiction and embellishment?
I don't know what it was that governed the Daily Mail's decision to publish that tat full of 26 inaccuracies but it feels very targeted and personal and it leaves me with a couple of burning questions:
There are 3 people in the feature and they've made up a story about me. If I am to take the situation at face value: Why when you have two other people who have called up wives, used their exes email accounts and hacked into websites, would you lead the article with and consistently refer to, the one person who you've made up a story about?
Or is the whole thing a work of fabrications, embellishments, and omissions about all three of us?
Whatever the motivations are for the Daily Mail to show such a blatant disregard for the facts, a persons character and their family, and the work of bloggers, one thing is for sure - the only amateurs here are the Daily Mail.
Update 14th May
The Daily Mail have removed the article and sent me a letter...
Again thanks to all of those who have taken the time to blog their support (I'll continue to update the list) :
Dollymix - Cate Sevilla
It's About Making Babies - Brad K
Shimmering Thoughts - Serendipity
Black and Married with Kids - TheMom and TheDad
Cheekie Talkback
Rachel North
One Man Blogs - Gordon McLean
Bad Girls Guide - Vixen
40s Singleness - Lisa Q
Leyton.org
Feeling Listless
The Make - Thomas
Emchi
Morphological Confetti - Stephen Bess
The F Word - Contemporary UK Feminism
Never Mind the Bloggocks
License to Roam
Longrider
Slaminsky
Real E Fun
New York Moments
To Withdraw Myself from Myself - Jo
Recently Zoe (Girl With a One Track Mind) blogged about plagarism from bloggers over at The Guardian and in particular mentioned Jonny B, who found his posts in the Mail on Sunday without his permission. He subsequently invoiced them but after agreeing to pay him, they actually had the cheek to refer to bloggers as "amateur writers" and claim "most people are happy to have their work recognised and displayed to a wider audience."
It seems shocking that a paper that's been more than around the block a bit would be so unaware of copyright laws but...the Daily Mail writes...for the Daily Mail. They have a Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along policy.
Which is why I shouldn't really have been that surprised by Laura Topham's hatchet job of me. When I phoned her on Wednesday reeling from the article and the scurrilous comments left by some of their readers, Laura denied that the paper had said that I took revenge online. Really?
"Natalie, like a growing number of other betrayed and deceived women, decided to take her revenge online."
I angrily read out several of the ridiculous untruths that had been published about me and her response was to tell me that it was "tongue in cheek...It's empowering..." and then in an attempt to sidestep the issue at hand she said "I can't believe they forgot to put in a link to your site and the ebook... I think readers would really love it...." and continued to repeat this musing aloud for the remainder of the conversation.
Can't you believe it Laura? I find that hard to believe considering that a link to any of my blogs would have made the Daily Mail look like they employ "amateur writers"... Unfortunately she didn't count on hundreds of their readers searching for "Natalie Lue blog" every day and finding out for themselves.
I wonder if they were confused by finding various snippets from aspects of my life, a blog full of women asking for relationship advice, or the latest hot off the shelves baby and mummy products?
So not only do the Daily Mail seem to have an aversion to dealing with the facts that are given to them about a story, but they will actually deny the printing of their own 'facts', and then in the face of confrontation, chalk it up to "tongue in cheek".
Who gets to decide what is tongue in cheek? Is it me, the person lined up with two other women under a headline about "e-venge", even though I said that I hadn't and would never take revenge and repeatedly stated that I didn't want to be in a revenge article?
Is it the reader, who judging by the comments that were placed before the Daily Mail halted publication of them, didn't see it as "tongue in cheek" and some of them were quite nasty?
Or is it the Daily Mail newspaper?
But then, if you're going to refer to my article as "tongue in cheek" should people who read glaring, sensationalist, often offensive headlines on the front of the Daily Mail, never mind inside it, then perceive all editorial in the Daily Mail as "tongue in cheek"?
Should Daily Mail readers buy it to find out the "tongue in cheek" humourous side of their sharp stance on immigration, the scaremongering stories about health issues, or their reporting about various murders? Maybe after they've finished reading it, they should then buy a proper paper to find out the facts...
Where do you draw the line? How do you determine which editorial will be factual and which will be a made up story, suitable for one of those 'real life' magazines?
Is providing "tongue in cheek" content the Daily Mail's editorial policy?
"Can you believe a thing you see on ITV?" Fridays front page roared. Well, based on their recent form, I think the bigger question is Can You Believe a Thing You See in the Daily Mail?
The Daily Mail thinks that they are in the driving seat here.
They write their stories to suit their own agenda, shouting their twisted views, shaping their readers opinion on it, allowing readers to jump all over the bandwagon and comment about it, and then when confronted, claim it's "tongue in cheek".
They take content without permission from bloggers and when confronted refer to them as "amateur writers" as if a blogger should be grateful for their work to appear in their paper...without their permission...
What if Jonny B had his own editorial policy which said that he only wanted to appear in certain media outlets and that he didn't want his work in there? What if they'd asked his permission and he'd said no? Well I guess they'd have gone ahead and published anyway because his view doesn't matter.
In fact, nobody's views but the Daily Mail's matter because from the moment that you build an editorial policy around spoonfeeding to an audience of people who clearly don't know the difference between fact and "tongue in cheek" works of fiction, the Daily Mail is doing a huge disservice to their readers.
Is there no story in facts? There are a lot of shitty, horrible, devastating, exciting, wonderful, REAL things that happen out there in the world - Why do we have to be subjected to works of fiction and embellishment?
I don't know what it was that governed the Daily Mail's decision to publish that tat full of 26 inaccuracies but it feels very targeted and personal and it leaves me with a couple of burning questions:
There are 3 people in the feature and they've made up a story about me. If I am to take the situation at face value: Why when you have two other people who have called up wives, used their exes email accounts and hacked into websites, would you lead the article with and consistently refer to, the one person who you've made up a story about?
Or is the whole thing a work of fabrications, embellishments, and omissions about all three of us?
Whatever the motivations are for the Daily Mail to show such a blatant disregard for the facts, a persons character and their family, and the work of bloggers, one thing is for sure - the only amateurs here are the Daily Mail.
Update 14th May
The Daily Mail have removed the article and sent me a letter...
Again thanks to all of those who have taken the time to blog their support (I'll continue to update the list) :
Dollymix - Cate Sevilla
It's About Making Babies - Brad K
Shimmering Thoughts - Serendipity
Black and Married with Kids - TheMom and TheDad
Cheekie Talkback
Rachel North
One Man Blogs - Gordon McLean
Bad Girls Guide - Vixen
40s Singleness - Lisa Q
Leyton.org
Feeling Listless
The Make - Thomas
Emchi
Morphological Confetti - Stephen Bess
The F Word - Contemporary UK Feminism
Never Mind the Bloggocks
License to Roam
Longrider
Slaminsky
Real E Fun
New York Moments
To Withdraw Myself from Myself - Jo
Thursday, May 08, 2008
The Daily Mail Newspaper Tells Everyone that I Blog for "E-Venge"
On April 30th just after 3.30pm, I snatched up my phone and bit the bullet. I called up the journalist that had 'interviewed' me (I say this loosely) and expressed my upset at her not actually stating that she was interviewing me and my concern that I would be included in a feature about revenge, which is not what I, or this blog are about. I told her quite shrilly (I was stressed for fecks sake) that I did NOT want to open the paper and see something like "Blogger gets revenge on ex with her blog!" or some other pathetic headline.
I went onto the Daily Mails supposed section for women yesterday and actually nearly threw up in shock!
"Don't get mad, get E-VENGE!"
It's even worse in the paper where just in case the Daily Mail hadn't quite put the full boot into misrepresenting me and featuring me in article full of TWENTY SIX inaccuracies about me, they added a sub header of "It's the new mantra for women using the internet to take revenge on cheating men".
Really, I don't think I have EVER been so angry!
I want to categorically state for the record that I did NOT set up this blog to take revenge on my ex. I set up this blog after a bad date with PC Plod, the extremely nice guy but incredibly boring copper. God that was almost four years ago!
I found out that my ex had been cheating after I started the blog - actually it was the following day. But actually, you don't need me to tell you this because anybody can read go back and check the facts and see for themselves!
Update May 9th - Here are some examples of inaccuracies:
"Natalie like a growing number of other betrayed and deceived women, decided to take her revenge online. 'I woke up at 5am and felt an overwhelming urge to vent my anger'.....'So I logged onto my computer and set up a blog'"
Total and utter poo. This is my first ever blog post. I did set up the blog at 5am because I couldn't sleep. Considering that I didn't know when I started the blog that my ex had been doing a bit of overlapping, how could I have felt such anger to set up a blog?
"In the past, Natalie might have taken revenge by cutting up her faithless fiancé's clothes, or perhaps even trashing his beloved car."
Today, I had to face the embarrassment of my neighbour asking me "So have you cut up other exes clothes or trashed their cars?" This line in the piece implies that had I not had access to the internet, I'd have done exactly that or 'may' have done this in the past....
"It felt great to release the pent-up frustration," says Natalie Lue, who was engaged to Tom for five years, but discovered his infidelity only after ending their relationship.
I told her I started the blog to vent about my frustrations about dating. I was also engaged for about 15 months...
"And because we'd met through colleagues and shared mutual friends, lots of people knew exactly who I was writing about."
Total bollocks. I blogged in anonymity for almost two years! A handful of people knew about the blog but the vast majority of my readership was strangers! I hadn't even worked with the colleagues we met through for a year when I started the blog, and I haven't spoken to or seen them for about three years!
"But once Natalie had finished pouring scorn on her ex-fiancĂ Tom, she found herself reluctant to give up her blog."
Once again, the Daily Mail is making me out to be a cyber bunny boiler who just couldn't stop wreaking revenge or should I say "pouring scorn" on my exes. This is a personal blog, a diary which has provided snapshots of my life. As I didn't start this blog to take revenge, there was nothing to be reluctant about giving up! This is a total and utter fabrication!
***
Just to show how inaccurate the Daily Mail are, let me give you some interesting figures:
In June 2004, my first month, I wrote 23 posts (yeah, I was single and used to update frequently!)
Out of 23 posts, only one post is dedicated to him which equals 4% of the content.
There are 2 more posts that make a reference to him. 1 post is a positive reference and 1 post is about men peeing on toilet seats and I wisecracked that he missed the rim.
In July 2004, I wrote 27 posts. 0 were dedicated to the subject of him. 2 made a reference to him and 1 made a reference to our engagement ring which I just realised that I have still forgotten to sell after FIVE years!
In August 2004, I wrote 22 posts. 0 were dedicated to the subject of him. 2 made a reference.
That means that out of 72 posts written in 3 months, 1 PERCENT of the posts were dedicated to him!
8% referenced him.
1% referenced the engagement ring.
Now what they don't know is that FORTY THREE PERCENT!!! of posts in June 2004 seem to mention toilet seats and the fact that I was living with that strange man boy who literally couldn't p*ss on a toilet seat to save his life!
Now, how the hell did the Daily Mail come up with the idea that I set up a revenge blog when I wasn't even writing about him, never mind taking revenge? What was I doing? Taking revenge on toilet seats and men that can't pee right?
Oh and I went from being engaged for 14/15 months (I forget now after soooo much time has passed) to being engaged for FIVE years! We've been broken up for five years and I've lived in London for seven... I'm only thirty so did they think I was some sort of frickin' child bride?!
Twenty frickin' bloody six inaccuracies or just outright fabrications about me in one poxy article and to add insult to injury, they didn't even mention Baggage Reclaim which was the only reason why I had initially agreed.
Of course I have written to the Press Complaints Commission, the editor and yada, yada, yada, but the fact remains that their papers become someones loo roll the next day but that pile of shite that is their article is up online telling anyone and everyone that I am an e-venger. It's pretty disgusting and what's most appauling is that they have reduced four years of this blog, two and a half years of Baggage Reclaim, a year of Bambino Goodies, and various other blogs plus my contributing...to an act of revenge....against someone who didn't even mean enough for me to even fully dedicate the one blog post about his cheating. I even said "The revelation last night doesn't hurt, but it does anger me, but even that has passed." and then in true me fashion, I rambled on about my period....
Oh and I know for a fact that they stopped publishing comments on the story yesterday as I was contacted by several people who said that they had commented to set the record straight. So not only do they want to put up 26 inaccuracies about me, but for some reason, they don't want anyone to know about it...
If this was pre-internet days, I really would be up sh*ts creek without a paddle but thankfully the internet which has made me connect with thousands of people, make quite few friends and acquaintances, and even a stalker...has meant that at least I can respond.
Jaysus!
Update 14th May
The Daily Mail have removed the article and sent me a letter...
Update 9th May - As I start to put the word out about what has happened, I want to include links of other bloggers comments of support on their blogs. Thank you!
Dollymix - Cate Sevilla
It's About Making Babies - Brad K
Shimmering Thoughts - Serendipity
Black and Married with Kids - TheMom and TheDad
Cheekie Talkback
Rachel North
One Man Blogs - Gordon McLean
Bad Girls Guide - Vixen
40s Singleness - Lisa Q
Leyton.org
Feeling Listless
The Make - Thomas
Emchi
Morphological Confetti - Stephen Bess
The F Word - Contemporary UK Feminism
Never Mind the Bloggocks
License to Roam
Longrider
Slaminsky
Real E Fun
The Kaptain Kobold Blog
New York Moments
My updates
I'm Tired of the Daily Mail and their "tongue in cheek" article
I went onto the Daily Mails supposed section for women yesterday and actually nearly threw up in shock!
"Don't get mad, get E-VENGE!"
It's even worse in the paper where just in case the Daily Mail hadn't quite put the full boot into misrepresenting me and featuring me in article full of TWENTY SIX inaccuracies about me, they added a sub header of "It's the new mantra for women using the internet to take revenge on cheating men".
Really, I don't think I have EVER been so angry!
I want to categorically state for the record that I did NOT set up this blog to take revenge on my ex. I set up this blog after a bad date with PC Plod, the extremely nice guy but incredibly boring copper. God that was almost four years ago!
I found out that my ex had been cheating after I started the blog - actually it was the following day. But actually, you don't need me to tell you this because anybody can read go back and check the facts and see for themselves!
Update May 9th - Here are some examples of inaccuracies:
"Natalie like a growing number of other betrayed and deceived women, decided to take her revenge online. 'I woke up at 5am and felt an overwhelming urge to vent my anger'.....'So I logged onto my computer and set up a blog'"
Total and utter poo. This is my first ever blog post. I did set up the blog at 5am because I couldn't sleep. Considering that I didn't know when I started the blog that my ex had been doing a bit of overlapping, how could I have felt such anger to set up a blog?
"In the past, Natalie might have taken revenge by cutting up her faithless fiancé's clothes, or perhaps even trashing his beloved car."
Today, I had to face the embarrassment of my neighbour asking me "So have you cut up other exes clothes or trashed their cars?" This line in the piece implies that had I not had access to the internet, I'd have done exactly that or 'may' have done this in the past....
"It felt great to release the pent-up frustration," says Natalie Lue, who was engaged to Tom for five years, but discovered his infidelity only after ending their relationship.
I told her I started the blog to vent about my frustrations about dating. I was also engaged for about 15 months...
"And because we'd met through colleagues and shared mutual friends, lots of people knew exactly who I was writing about."
Total bollocks. I blogged in anonymity for almost two years! A handful of people knew about the blog but the vast majority of my readership was strangers! I hadn't even worked with the colleagues we met through for a year when I started the blog, and I haven't spoken to or seen them for about three years!
"But once Natalie had finished pouring scorn on her ex-fiancĂ Tom, she found herself reluctant to give up her blog."
Once again, the Daily Mail is making me out to be a cyber bunny boiler who just couldn't stop wreaking revenge or should I say "pouring scorn" on my exes. This is a personal blog, a diary which has provided snapshots of my life. As I didn't start this blog to take revenge, there was nothing to be reluctant about giving up! This is a total and utter fabrication!
***
Just to show how inaccurate the Daily Mail are, let me give you some interesting figures:
In June 2004, my first month, I wrote 23 posts (yeah, I was single and used to update frequently!)
Out of 23 posts, only one post is dedicated to him which equals 4% of the content.
There are 2 more posts that make a reference to him. 1 post is a positive reference and 1 post is about men peeing on toilet seats and I wisecracked that he missed the rim.
In July 2004, I wrote 27 posts. 0 were dedicated to the subject of him. 2 made a reference to him and 1 made a reference to our engagement ring which I just realised that I have still forgotten to sell after FIVE years!
In August 2004, I wrote 22 posts. 0 were dedicated to the subject of him. 2 made a reference.
That means that out of 72 posts written in 3 months, 1 PERCENT of the posts were dedicated to him!
8% referenced him.
1% referenced the engagement ring.
Now what they don't know is that FORTY THREE PERCENT!!! of posts in June 2004 seem to mention toilet seats and the fact that I was living with that strange man boy who literally couldn't p*ss on a toilet seat to save his life!
Now, how the hell did the Daily Mail come up with the idea that I set up a revenge blog when I wasn't even writing about him, never mind taking revenge? What was I doing? Taking revenge on toilet seats and men that can't pee right?
Oh and I went from being engaged for 14/15 months (I forget now after soooo much time has passed) to being engaged for FIVE years! We've been broken up for five years and I've lived in London for seven... I'm only thirty so did they think I was some sort of frickin' child bride?!
Twenty frickin' bloody six inaccuracies or just outright fabrications about me in one poxy article and to add insult to injury, they didn't even mention Baggage Reclaim which was the only reason why I had initially agreed.
Of course I have written to the Press Complaints Commission, the editor and yada, yada, yada, but the fact remains that their papers become someones loo roll the next day but that pile of shite that is their article is up online telling anyone and everyone that I am an e-venger. It's pretty disgusting and what's most appauling is that they have reduced four years of this blog, two and a half years of Baggage Reclaim, a year of Bambino Goodies, and various other blogs plus my contributing...to an act of revenge....against someone who didn't even mean enough for me to even fully dedicate the one blog post about his cheating. I even said "The revelation last night doesn't hurt, but it does anger me, but even that has passed." and then in true me fashion, I rambled on about my period....
Oh and I know for a fact that they stopped publishing comments on the story yesterday as I was contacted by several people who said that they had commented to set the record straight. So not only do they want to put up 26 inaccuracies about me, but for some reason, they don't want anyone to know about it...
If this was pre-internet days, I really would be up sh*ts creek without a paddle but thankfully the internet which has made me connect with thousands of people, make quite few friends and acquaintances, and even a stalker...has meant that at least I can respond.
Jaysus!
Update 14th May
The Daily Mail have removed the article and sent me a letter...
Update 9th May - As I start to put the word out about what has happened, I want to include links of other bloggers comments of support on their blogs. Thank you!
Dollymix - Cate Sevilla
It's About Making Babies - Brad K
Shimmering Thoughts - Serendipity
Black and Married with Kids - TheMom and TheDad
Cheekie Talkback
Rachel North
One Man Blogs - Gordon McLean
Bad Girls Guide - Vixen
40s Singleness - Lisa Q
Leyton.org
Feeling Listless
The Make - Thomas
Emchi
Morphological Confetti - Stephen Bess
The F Word - Contemporary UK Feminism
Never Mind the Bloggocks
License to Roam
Longrider
Slaminsky
Real E Fun
The Kaptain Kobold Blog
New York Moments
My updates
I'm Tired of the Daily Mail and their "tongue in cheek" article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
